lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: dw_wdt: pat the watchdog before enabling it
On 01/23/2015 08:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Guenter,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 01/22/2015 09:09 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> Jisheng,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Doug,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:17:22 -0800
>>>> Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On some dw_wdt implementations the "top" register may be initted to 0
>>>>> at bootup. In such a case, each "pat" of the watchdog will reset the
>>>>> timer to 0xffff. That's pretty short.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> + Guenter Roeck
>>>>
>>>> This should have been fixed by dfa07141e7a792("watchdog: dw_wdt:
>>>> initialise
>>>> TOP_INIT in dw_wdt_set_top()")
>>>
>>>
>>> I will admit that I'm testing on a tree that doesn't have your patch
>>> (I'm on a 3.14 kernel with lots of backports). ...but I did try
>>> cherry-picking your patch before I wrote up mine and it didn't fix my
>>> problem. I believe that the watchdog that's in Rockchip rk3288 must
>>> be a slightly different version of the IP block than you're working
>>> with.
>>>
>>> Specifically I see the register WDT_TORR that has an offset of 0x4.
>>> That's the RANGE_REG in your code. It shows bits 3:0 set the timeout
>>> period (0 = 0xffff and 15 = 0x7fffffff). It shows bits 31:4 as
>>> "reserved".
>>>
>> Not sure where that leaves us. Does that mean the driver supports different
>> hardware with different register sets ?
>
> Apparently so. I've only seen the documentation from rk3288, but it's
> clearly different than what you saw.
>
>> Should that be documented in the
>> driver,
>
> Probably not a terrible idea.
>
>> and should we have (or do we need) different compatible statements for those
>> variants, and conditional code in the driver ?
>
> I'm not sure we actually need any conditional code. I've put the
> other patch on rk3288 and it didn't hurt to write those reserved bits.
> I also can't quite believe that the extra pat will hurt on other
> hardware.
>
>
>> And does it mean we need both patches, at least for some of the hardware
>> variants ? If so, what happens if those patches are applied and the
>> resulting
>> driver runs on the other hardware ?
>
> I think it should be fine.
>
>
> Do you want me to spin my patch and add some extra comments (but
> otherwise keep it roughly unchanged?). We can get Jisheng to add his
> Tested-by...
>

Yes, that would be great.

Thanks,
Guenter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-23 18:21    [W:0.118 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site